Great post, Natasha, thank you. As I understand it... with our energy systems, the food system has become principally a vehicle for profits for the fossil fuel industry. Regenerative agriculture is far more profitable for farmers, but of course not at all profitable for big oil. Regenerative agriculture may sometimes deliver lower bulk yields, but delivers higher nutritional yields. The food sector problems are entirely related to our energy sector problems: flawed democracies (in the US, UK and South Africa, my home) and neoliberal ideology leading to woeful under-regulation of a now criminal industry. So the fix is lodged not in the food system itself but in political reform. In the UK, you may have a shot at this if Labour follows through on proportional representation (hopefully not straight PR which is as useless as FPTP).
I think we would have the same food system whether it was powered by fossil fuels or green energy. These bad foods are things that we desire at a fundamental level -- even if they are bad for us!
Agreed re human nature, but must disagree about the energy inputs. The current food system that focuses on energy inputs and a few key nutrients from fertilisers effectively steroid-bulk our foods – making them more carbohydrate dense without balancing them out with the full range of nutrients. So if we are dependent on processed or excessively carb-dense foods, we literally have to eat more – because our bodies are still craving those other nutrients, and playing catch-up to get them. I was chatting to an expert in regenerative agriculture a few weeks ago – he's supporting South African farmers in transitioning to regenerative agriculture (low/no till etc) – and his work is going well because the model really does work better for farmers themselves. Anyway, he introduced me to a term I'd not heard before – 'hollow food' – as a descriptor for these carb-dense, addictive, nutrient deficient, over-processed food products – that have come to dominate capitalist food systems. (Capitalist, in this instance, too dominated by outside interests trying to siphon out profit – nothing wrong with markets.)
Capitalist – in this instance, too dominated by outside interests trying to siphon out profit, nothing wrong with markets. Anyway, I guess on balance, I'm trying to say an innocent technocratic diagnosis of food systems problems that ignores political economy is destined to fail. Unfortunately, in my experience, academics and establishment experts are often uncomfortable with political-economy diagnoses.)
I guess I'm certainly keen on the evolutionary perspective when thinking about humans and food. Of course there are other factors, but I think you can go a long way to understanding the dilemma that humans find themselves in by thinking about how well suited they are for their current environment. But that is perhaps my bias.
Well, your question was, "How do we fix this problem?" I agree that understanding how our current environment overwhelms our inherited biology is vital, and there's a lot that can be done to put that kind of insight to good use. But it's mostly relatively privileged people who have the leisure and leeway to figure out how to beat Big Food and recover our health. But making it easier for people on shift work in precarious employment with little income for healthy food to eat well will probably demand systemic change that includes kicking the fossil fuel sector out of big agriculture.
Excellent post, Natasha. Processed foods clearly lead to overconsumption.
But I think we also need to take into account economic factors. Almost two decades ago health economist David Cutler and two colleagues at Harvard wrote a great article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives seeking to explain rising obesity among Americans. They explained how an array of technical changes had cut the time and lowered the costs in preparing foods eg microwave ovens and prepared ingredients such as French fries. Using time diaries they found that Americans had responded to the lower "time price" of food not by eating more at set meals but by having more snacks. I know the study you cited allowed people eating the non-processed foods to snack, but snacking is much more calorific nowadays. Another economic dimension is that processed food is so often cheaper.
What is the defining feature or characteristic that distinguishes 'processed' from 'unprocessed' foods? From the footnote, there are many items normally considered processed (e.g. hot dogs). But I wonder if the term 'processed' is too-broad to be helpful, or even a bit of a misnomer. Perhaps the distinguishing factor is actually the amount/proportion of unhealthy ingredients, like sugar and salt, (regardless of whether it's processed, unprocessed, home-made, other)?
For example, blueberry yoghurt is on the bad list - presumably when packaged and purchased from the store. But if I purchased plain yoghurt and frozen blueberries from the store and then combined them myself, it would not be processed, correct? Could any bread products ever be considered unprocessed (even homemade)? Anything with flour? Could beef and bean chili ever be unprocessed? (currently on the bad list).
Natasha, what kinds and level of processing do you think—based on such studies—determine the threshold between processed/unprocessed? How adulterated can foods be before passing the threshold? Skim milk, plain yoghurt, and olive oil are definitely processed to an extent, as are dried figs, penne pasta, black bean hummus....
So you can look at the Supplementary info in the paper cited to find out how the authors did this. But I can recall that plain greek yoghurt wasn't a processed food, and nor would blueberries be. But when they are put together, with other additives, they are. And beef and bean chili from a can, is quite different to beef cooked with beans. As for bread. Good question. I like to think that wholemeal is ok, particularly if it has seeds and grains in it. But that may be wishful thinking.
The vast subsidies we give for processed foods is part of the problem. USDA, if I remember right, gave $15 million to a study to cut back on cheese, but a $50 million grant to inject more cheese into pizza….
Great post, Natasha, thank you. As I understand it... with our energy systems, the food system has become principally a vehicle for profits for the fossil fuel industry. Regenerative agriculture is far more profitable for farmers, but of course not at all profitable for big oil. Regenerative agriculture may sometimes deliver lower bulk yields, but delivers higher nutritional yields. The food sector problems are entirely related to our energy sector problems: flawed democracies (in the US, UK and South Africa, my home) and neoliberal ideology leading to woeful under-regulation of a now criminal industry. So the fix is lodged not in the food system itself but in political reform. In the UK, you may have a shot at this if Labour follows through on proportional representation (hopefully not straight PR which is as useless as FPTP).
I think we would have the same food system whether it was powered by fossil fuels or green energy. These bad foods are things that we desire at a fundamental level -- even if they are bad for us!
Agreed re human nature, but must disagree about the energy inputs. The current food system that focuses on energy inputs and a few key nutrients from fertilisers effectively steroid-bulk our foods – making them more carbohydrate dense without balancing them out with the full range of nutrients. So if we are dependent on processed or excessively carb-dense foods, we literally have to eat more – because our bodies are still craving those other nutrients, and playing catch-up to get them. I was chatting to an expert in regenerative agriculture a few weeks ago – he's supporting South African farmers in transitioning to regenerative agriculture (low/no till etc) – and his work is going well because the model really does work better for farmers themselves. Anyway, he introduced me to a term I'd not heard before – 'hollow food' – as a descriptor for these carb-dense, addictive, nutrient deficient, over-processed food products – that have come to dominate capitalist food systems. (Capitalist, in this instance, too dominated by outside interests trying to siphon out profit – nothing wrong with markets.)
Capitalist – in this instance, too dominated by outside interests trying to siphon out profit, nothing wrong with markets. Anyway, I guess on balance, I'm trying to say an innocent technocratic diagnosis of food systems problems that ignores political economy is destined to fail. Unfortunately, in my experience, academics and establishment experts are often uncomfortable with political-economy diagnoses.)
I guess I'm certainly keen on the evolutionary perspective when thinking about humans and food. Of course there are other factors, but I think you can go a long way to understanding the dilemma that humans find themselves in by thinking about how well suited they are for their current environment. But that is perhaps my bias.
Well, your question was, "How do we fix this problem?" I agree that understanding how our current environment overwhelms our inherited biology is vital, and there's a lot that can be done to put that kind of insight to good use. But it's mostly relatively privileged people who have the leisure and leeway to figure out how to beat Big Food and recover our health. But making it easier for people on shift work in precarious employment with little income for healthy food to eat well will probably demand systemic change that includes kicking the fossil fuel sector out of big agriculture.
Excellent post, Natasha. Processed foods clearly lead to overconsumption.
But I think we also need to take into account economic factors. Almost two decades ago health economist David Cutler and two colleagues at Harvard wrote a great article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives seeking to explain rising obesity among Americans. They explained how an array of technical changes had cut the time and lowered the costs in preparing foods eg microwave ovens and prepared ingredients such as French fries. Using time diaries they found that Americans had responded to the lower "time price" of food not by eating more at set meals but by having more snacks. I know the study you cited allowed people eating the non-processed foods to snack, but snacking is much more calorific nowadays. Another economic dimension is that processed food is so often cheaper.
An interesting point, thank you!
What is the defining feature or characteristic that distinguishes 'processed' from 'unprocessed' foods? From the footnote, there are many items normally considered processed (e.g. hot dogs). But I wonder if the term 'processed' is too-broad to be helpful, or even a bit of a misnomer. Perhaps the distinguishing factor is actually the amount/proportion of unhealthy ingredients, like sugar and salt, (regardless of whether it's processed, unprocessed, home-made, other)?
For example, blueberry yoghurt is on the bad list - presumably when packaged and purchased from the store. But if I purchased plain yoghurt and frozen blueberries from the store and then combined them myself, it would not be processed, correct? Could any bread products ever be considered unprocessed (even homemade)? Anything with flour? Could beef and bean chili ever be unprocessed? (currently on the bad list).
Natasha, what kinds and level of processing do you think—based on such studies—determine the threshold between processed/unprocessed? How adulterated can foods be before passing the threshold? Skim milk, plain yoghurt, and olive oil are definitely processed to an extent, as are dried figs, penne pasta, black bean hummus....
So you can look at the Supplementary info in the paper cited to find out how the authors did this. But I can recall that plain greek yoghurt wasn't a processed food, and nor would blueberries be. But when they are put together, with other additives, they are. And beef and bean chili from a can, is quite different to beef cooked with beans. As for bread. Good question. I like to think that wholemeal is ok, particularly if it has seeds and grains in it. But that may be wishful thinking.
The vast subsidies we give for processed foods is part of the problem. USDA, if I remember right, gave $15 million to a study to cut back on cheese, but a $50 million grant to inject more cheese into pizza….
yikes!